1978 (8) TMI 219 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to the constitutional validity of Schedule D of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948 as applied to Haryana.
Alleged double taxation due to the application of Schedule D.
Interpretation of statutory provisions and constitutional provisions regarding taxation on declared goods.
Validity of the assessment order and availability of alternative remedies.

Analysis:
The judgment addressed the challenge to the constitutional validity of Schedule D of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948, as extended to Haryana. The petitioners contended that the assessment as first purchasers led to double taxation, violating the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, and Article 286(3) of the Constitution. The crux of the argument revolved around the application of Schedule D to the petitioners' case, specifically whether their situation fell under item (i) or (ii) of the schedule. The Court referred to constitutional provisions and legal precedents to analyze the validity of the petitioners' claims.

The Court highlighted the constitutional framework regarding taxation on declared goods, emphasizing the importance of Section 14 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, which designates certain goods as declared goods. The petitioners' challenge focused on the alleged double taxation arising from the application of Schedule D. However, the Court noted that a similar challenge had been addressed in a previous Division Bench judgment, where the validity of Schedule D was upheld despite concerns of double taxation. The Court cited legal precedents and observed that the constitutionality of a statute does not solely depend on its application in a specific case.

The judgment also discussed the availability of alternative remedies for the petitioners. The Court pointed out that the assessment order was appealable, rendering the writ petition not maintainable under Article 226(3). The petitioners were advised to pursue statutory appeals and revisions as per the legal provisions. Additionally, the Court referred to the proviso to Section 58(2) of the Constitution (Forty-second Amendment) Act, 1976, as a potential remedy for the petitioners, if applicable to their case.

In conclusion, the Court dismissed the writ petition, stating it lacked merit, and imposed costs on the petitioners. The judgment emphasized the legal precedents, statutory provisions, and constitutional framework governing taxation on declared goods, ultimately upholding the validity of Schedule D in the context of the petitioners' case. The decision underscored the importance of following established legal procedures and utilizing available remedies in tax-related disputes.